SARDARMAL JAIN Vs. NAGAR NIGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The conviction of the appellant under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 rests on the substituted report of the central Food Laboratory observing that the sample of 'burfi' taken from the petitioner's shop was adulterated with Rhodamine-B when tested for colour. The superseded report of the Public Analyst was somewhat different to the extent that the sample was adulterated as it was harmful for human consumption. Under the provisions of the aforesaid Act when both the reports appear on the scene, it is the central Food Laboratory's report which holds the field.

(2.) It has been urged by learned counsel for the appellant, and in our view rightly, that Rhodamine as such is not a traditional colouring agent for burfi. But, otherwise, it has colour since it is used as ink in the printing process. Our attention has been brought prudently to the deposition of Rajender Singh, the food Inspector, who caused the purchase of burfi, dividing it into three parts in order to sample it. He has stated in the Examination-in-Chief that he had purchased 1 1/2 kgs of chocolate burfi from the accused (by which he meant the servant of the present appellant) placing the whole lot of burfi on a newspaper which newspaper had been given to him by the servant of the appellant. Each of the l/3rd portion of burfi thereafter was put in dry plastic bags. Each sample wasput in a tin and then sealed in the usual manner for onward transmission to the local Health Authority and for analysis to the Public Analyst. In cross- examination, it was specifically put to Rajender Singh, Public Witness 1 as with what ink were the newspapers printed He was candid enough to tell that the newspapers were printed with Rhodamine ink.

(3.) From these two particulars gathered in the evidence of Public Witness I, the appellant contends that the possibility cannot be ruled out that the Rhodamine ink used in the print of the newspaper may, on contact with the burfi, get transmitted on the burfi, soggy and fragile as the newspapers normally are, transmitting their imprint on other objects getting in touch with them. In any event, this argument introduces lot of doubt in the food article being adulterated by the appellant or his servant in adding Rhodamine-B to it as a deliberate act. The only explanation to the contrary rendered by the learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation is that 'rhodamine-B' as referred to in the Report of the central Food Laboratory and 'rhodamine' as referred to by the Food inspector are possibly two different substances. He could, however, not substantiate this argument by any means. The opposition thus put is not worthy of credence. We would rather rest the case on doubt getting introduced into it as to the substance of the adulterant and adulteration.